to rape or not to rape?

In My Humble Opinion
21

I have it seems mistakenly/accidently posed two different yet similar questions. This is not a problem, but it should be clarified.

In one question, I asked if h/s rape could be justified. I realize there are some extreme/absurd scenarios that one could demonstrate the “justification” of performing an action for the greater good.

The other question was whether h/s rape was an absolute wrong action. If not, how/why? When I said justify this, I should have been more precise in my wording. I really wasn’t laying claim to the knowledge of “good and evil”. A simple right or wrong seems to be more appropriate for evaluating a course of action.

I hope that helps?

Some are wrong, ie: cheating, stealing, lying, murder, rape, abuse, etc…okay

Some are right (not wrong), ie: honesty, integrity, charity, virtue, respect, etc…okay

There is some overlap in categorizing these things. Very few can probably be considered an absolute…if any!

Does simply justifying violations of what you would consider a wrong action make it now a RIGHT action. I know it sounds confusing, it is…when trying to put it in print. Hopefully, some of you can help me with this.

I’m gonna post (to dodge the hamsters) will proceed immediately

22

If modern society is willing to accept the idea that everything is subjective, (that there is no absolute right or wrong) a person or a nation can do practically anything it wants w/out conscience.

I may be mistaken in my belief that there are some things that are wrong period. You may corner me in a situation where I have no REAL choice but to do the atrocity. But, that does not make it right. In other words, the ends don’t always justify the means.

Take for instance, as per Blake’s example:

A threat to mankind is eminent, the only way to save humanity is to allow the “terrorist” to rape/torture/murder a child on live television. Is it acceptable? Some say yes…Is it right? I would say NO…it is never right, it is an absolute wrong.

To those who say yes: What if the child could save just the U.S.
" " " NY State
" " " NY City
Manhatten
neighborhood
family/self
Got the picture, is there a line?

I don’t think so, it’s either wrong or not and justifying it doesn’t make it right.

Again, I may be wrong…lord know it wouldn’t be the first time.

So, do absolutes exist? Is H/S rape an absolute wrong or not?

Peace

23

Over half a million (500,000) women are raped each year.

400,000 of them go unreported.

–Source: Movie “Shame” starring Amanda Donohoe and Dean Stockwell, from the Lifetime Movie Network.

24

I figured it was a hell of a lot more than that. Is that US or worldwide?

How many women are raped (non-violent) and don’t realize it?

(She: Not tonight honey…I really don’t…)

(He: bullshit…it’s been too long and…“well you know”)

Anyway, beside the point (but thanks for the input) unless you are claiming sheer numbers as proof of rape as a right behavior?

25

I would say yes. If an action is truly justifiable then it has to be right doesn’t it? A problem is that you still haven’t explained what you mean by ‘right’ and ‘good’. Since apparently all actions have both negative and positive consequences there doesn’t seem to be any standard for ‘good’ beyond whether the net outcome is positive or negative. The only way to justify an action would then be to demonstrate that the net outcome was indisputably positive. If the net outcome wasn’t positive then the cat isn’t good.

I at least am not talking about cornering anyone into doing anything they don’t want to do. Many people don’t want to commit acts that are ‘good’ because they find them unpleasant, but that doesn’t make the act less ‘good’

I’m talking about a situation where the act is ‘good’ simply because the act is a net positive. I can only work on my personal definition of ‘good’, which is that the net outcome is positive. If that is the case then in fact the ends do justify the means. Most people live by this believe. They are quite prepared to imprison criminals despite imprisonment being an ‘evil’ act because the end (a safe society) does justify the means.

“>>>Got the picture, is there a line?
I don’t think so, it’s either wrong or not and justifying it doesn’t make it right.”

Those two sentences seem to be self-contradictory. You say there isn’t a line and then you say that things are either right or wrong, which implies strongly that there is a clear line.

I say that there is no line, that raping 200 innocent people to save 1 is never right, while raping 1 mass murderer to save 200, 000, 000 innocent people is right and somewhere in the middle the line blurs. Maybe raping 200 mass murderers to save 1 innocent is acceptable. Maybe it isn’t. The line is blurry. The act of rape isn’t ‘either right or wrong’

You say “justifying it doesn’t make it right”. I really do have to ask what does make an act right according to you then? If it isn’t justifying it then the only other criterion I can imagine is that God said it was good.

26

Like I was saying earlier, I try to avoid terms such as good and evil. I don’t know why it came out that way before, I apologize.

These terms imply divine law and the knowledge thereof…I make no such claims, for or against.

Right/wrong…close enough, and I suppose the best definition I can come up with offhand would be similar to the “Golden Rule” or Kant’s Categorical Imperative, with aspects of Keke’s Moral Tradition as well.

An action/behavior/idea is right or wrong if, when considered in a non-threatening situation, they(people) would willingly allow themselves be subject to this event.

ie: Would any society WANT to be enslaved? No, therefore slavery is wrong! But, is it absolute?

***you just posted, so I haven’t had a chance to read and rebut, can do asap…
I make no claims of authority…okay?

27

I can see your logic here, but I have to disagree. You’ve basically defined a calculus of morality, that is, a quantitative means of determining if an act is good or not. Add up the “goodness” of an act and all its consequences, and if it’s positive, the act is good, and if it’s negative, the act is bad.

Now, some people would scoff at the idea of a calculus of morality, but not me. However, I do have to dispute the fact that you think that there is only one valid calculus. Another perfectly reasonable one is simply taking the “goodness” value of the act itself. If it’s positive, the act is good, and if not, it’s bad. This eliminates even considering the consequences. Under this calculus, saving a life is always good, and rape is always bad. I don’t know much about philosophy, but I think this is sort of Kantian. I think Kant definitely believed in absolutes, so for Kant the OP would be easy to answer.

You also accused t-keela of employing a third calculus, as I now understand it. Under this calculus, if an act itself has a negative goodness value, or any of its consequences have a negative goodness value, then it’s bad. Otherwise it’s good. You rightly claim that this calculus is trivial, because nothing would ever be good under it. But that doesn’t mean we are left only with the option of yours.

28

“>>>>An action/behavior/idea is right or wrong if, when considered in a non-threatening situation, they(people) would willingly allow themselves be subject to this event.”

You have answered your own questions by defining the terms. An act can’t be right if it isn’t consensual by your definition of ‘right, and by definition rape can never be consensual.

You are essentially asking whether a red ball can ever be blue. The answer is of course “No”.

29

You say “truly” justifying something makes it right…hmmm, I don’t know. See that’s kind of like good and bad, Sorry I used that term to begin with.

Perhaps you’ve had a chance to go over my last post.

You’re defining good/bad acts by weighing the outcomes, “Eudaimonism” in approach, Aristotle. Makes sense to a point, until you consider the minorities point of view. If more “good”, pleasure, satisfaction, leisure, etc. as an objective measure of virtues vs. “bad” pain, suffering, death, abuse, etc.

If this is the measure of behavior, the majority can do whatever it see’s as in their best interest. Especially if there are no absolutes (right or wrong) to call their conscience into play.

*“I at least am not talking about cornering anyone into doing anything they don’t want to do.”
When given the choice, rape this guy or everybody dies. Then that person is in a corner to which there is no choice.

I said, there was no line…perhaps that was confusing because, when the payoff decreases and the cost increases, the line “gets fuzzy” so to speak, thus implying there is one. There has to be if you say OKAY that’s it, no more…where the line IS definately a problem.

That’s what I meant, when I said there is NO LINE it’s either/or, NOT both.

(feedin the hamsters, be right back… hang tough though, you’re in the majority from what I can tell, I’m just UnderDog, damn that’d make a good sig.)

***just caught your new post, be right back

30

I don’t think that. I think there can be and in fact are lots of possible ways of calculating the goodness of an act, including taking into account spiritual positions. All are equally valid to the users, and who but th user has the right to determine ‘goodness’?

Which would appear to be either circular or to require a huge number of axioms, one for each act in fact.

But only if you utilise axioms that say that saving a life is always good, and rape is always bad. If you utilise an axiom saying that saving a life is always bad, and rape is always good then that would be equally correct wouldn’t it? I can’t see that you standard of good and bad come from anywhere, they seem to be completely arbitrary.

Nor did I ever say that. What I did say is that the calculus I use is the calculus I use and as the only one presented up to your last post the only one I could discuss.

I agree t=wholeheartedly that your calculus is workable, it just seems so completely arbitrary that anyone can define the “goodness” value of any act for themselves with no reference to externae or even any need for internal consistency. If that is the case then I can simply define the goodness value of homosexual rape as being infinitely high and thus it becomes right.

31

Perhaps, if so then I want to thankyou for the excellent counterpoint. I think there have to be absolutes in life, even if confined to the strictest of variables.
The simple statement: “There are no absolutes”, infers that there are.

I would be glad to rehash if you have any points which require attention. If there is a better way to define right/wrong I will gladly consider it.

I was in no way trying to develop myself a tautology. If I have done so, then let’s correct my terms where need be.

I assume you believe there are no absolutes and that H/S rape is neither right nor wrong, correct?

32

I don’t se it that way. I may see it in my best interest to kill all tall people, but it would take some pretty exceptional circumstances to justify that number of deaths simply because I feel like it. Saying that something is just doesn’t make it just.

There is a choice, they can do it or not do it. That’s the whole point. Only when there is a choice available can an act be considered good or evil. If there is no option then it is what we call an accident and neither good nor bad.

I still don’t agree. An act can be both good and evil depending on the individuals involved and the circumstances. An act that is never right in the US in 2002 in peacetime can readily become right when committed by another person in another place in a time of war.

Correct. And precisely because I reject your standard of right: An action/behavior/idea is wrong if, when considered in a non-threatening situation, they(people) would not willingly allow themselves be subject to this event.

Using that standard then it is wrong of me to defend myself even if attacked. If we accept that a mugger would never willingly allow himself to be maced then we have to say that making a mugger is an evil act.

If we accept that a negligent Doctor would never willingly allow himself to be found guilty of malpractice then suing a negligent Doctor is an evil act and so forth.

In essence by the standard you have presented makes it necessary for good people to be victims. It is as impossible to justify self defence as it is to justify rape. I don’t accept that and believe that it proves that your standard for right and wrong is inherently flawed and at odds of most people’s understanding of the terms.

33

I said in the very beginning that one can justify what would normally be considered a wrong action. (ie: killing another person in self-defense for example) It is a justifiable action, meaning: I was forced to do something that I wouldn’t normally do.

It does not however, change the nature of the act.

(I don’t know, maybe that’s my loophole? I make a distinction between right and justified.)

I might mace a robber if I were accosted. Again, I am in a situation in which I have to choose between two wrongs. Sure, I can pick the one which is in my best interest. But, I would not ordinarily walk up to a stranger and spray mace on them.

The measure of right/wrong isn’t one of singularity. It’s not what you or I would normally accept.
In that case all behavior would be subjective. That’s what we have now, to an extent. The rule/maxim applies to mankind in general. The mugger broke the maxim to begin with, thereby placing you in a “corner.”

Of course you aren’t expected to not defend yourself. But, don’t assume that makes the act of killing another human being okay now. If that is what it takes.

So, what would be your idea/define of right and wrong?
Do you believe they even exist?

34

I don’t see justifiable in that way. I prefer the standard definition: “To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid.” By definition something that is justified is right.

But by your standard you aren’t are you? You have two choices: allow him to take your money, or mace him. If you mace him that is wrong. If you allow him to take your money that isn’t wrong on your part, it’s only wrong on his.

That’s the whole problem with your standard for right and wrong, it means good people must be victims because as soon as they do anything that someone else doesn’t like then they are doing wrong.

There is nothing wrong with demanding for your money back if you get conned, and yet a conman would never ‘when considered in a non-threatening situation, willingly allow themselves be subject to this event.” As such demanding one’s money back form a conman is in fact an evil act.

I don’t believe that and neither do most other people.

Expected by whom? Not by the law certainly, but legality does not equal morality. However in order to commit only good acts by your definition you are expected to never do anything that anyone objects to, whether it be defending yourself or demanding your money back. Even refusing to have sex with someone is wrong by your standard since a horny person, when considered in a non-threatening situation, would never willingly allow themselves be subject to going home alone.

In short your standard for right and wrong requires us to never think of our interests at all and always only consider what other people want. As soon as we do otherwise we are doing wrong.

Yes I do. In short form if something is just then it is right and if it is injust then it is wrong. This of course leaves a lot of grey areas.

35

ha-ha…:smiley: I hear ya!

I’m gonna hit the rack, (I’ll be back) I gotta get up in a few hours to work. We’re getting somewhere I think. I believe we both have some flaws in theory…there’s definitely some good action involved in people trying to work together at understanding each other.

Peace…:slight_smile:

36

Sorry I wasn’t able to get back earlier to clarify my position, but I just wanted to stress that my position is that rape can never be right, or good.

I think what we have here may be a difference between morals and ethics. As Blake points out, the rapist in my scenario would not be held ethically responsible for the rape – he would not be charged with any crime. However, I believe that he would still be morally responsible. And yes, at some point my morality does trace back to my belief in God, although I don’t think that God is necessary for morality. Although I give wide leeway to moral differences among religions, I do think that there are some moral values that are absolute. For instance, if there were a religion that sanctioned rape, or claimed that it was required by the gods, I would condemn that religion and its practitioners in the belief that their morality was flawed.

37

"Over half a million (500,000) women are raped each year.

400,000 of them go unreported."
If they are unreported, why do we think they happened?

38

Because they are admitted to friends, or on surveys, or informally to the police (as examples). When I was assaulted, I had the option of “reporting” anonymously, which would not have generated a police report or any charges filed, but would have been used for statistical purposes. This data, as in most data collection, is extrapolated to the population at large. I do have to question the above statistic on different grounds, however. 500,000 where? Kansas? Kambuckta? The whole planet?

As far as the topic at hand, there is no circumstance, ever, in which rape is justifiable. That is an absolute. No matter how horrible I find a person, it is wrong to wish phsyical suffering and psychological damage on them. I don’t think that murder/self-defense is an applicable analogy. Sure, I could say, “I killed that person because otherwise they would have killed me.” But I can’t really say, “I raped that person because otherwise they would have raped me.” Even extrapolating it to “the greater good,” as it seems to be in some cases above, evil done for good reasons is still evil. If I committed cultural genocide to save x number of people, would that be okay? If I bombed Germany? Napalmed a children’s hospital?

39

[quote]
If I committed cultural genocide to save x number of people, would that be okay? If I bombed Germany? Napalmed a children’s hospital?

[quote]

Exactly that happens in war all the time. Most people don’t find it to be anything less than acceptable. Yes we’d rather avoid it, but if the choice is between bombing Nagasaki and killing 500, 000 or losing 5 million lives storming the beaches then we bomb Nagasaki.

And they would condemn yours, which goes no way towards demonstrating whether there is any absolute right or wrong or whether rape is absolutely wrong.

40

D’oh

Exactly that happens in war all the time. Most people don’t find it to be anything less than acceptable. Yes we’d rather avoid it, but if the choice is between bombing Nagasaki and killing 500, 000 or losing 5 million lives storming the beaches then we bomb Nagasaki.

And they would condemn yours, which goes no way towards demonstrating whether there is any absolute right or wrong or whether rape is absolutely wrong.